Suit filed in case of "Girl dead, boy injured at Glacier National Park

[Wookie]

I agree. I read through the complaint once and even if it never specifically said so, I certainly got the impression that this was the shop's suggestion to get Linnea started on her AOW. Even if it is not spelled out in the complaint, I'm sure the plaintiff's attorney plans to steer the discussion that way in court.

I again spoke to Concannon. There is no doubt that Linnea was a student, and that she was enrolled in her advanced open water class. The dive she was on, although there was no pre-dive briefing conducted, was understood by all participants to be an instructional dive. There is much more that I am not at liberty to say, but there is plenty of proof that this was an instructional dive for Linnea.

 

[boulderjohn]

There is much more that I am not at liberty to say, but there is plenty of proof that this was an instructional dive for Linnea.

Curious, since the complaint says twice that it was NOT an instructional dive.

As I said, if this was an instructional dive for her, then I wish there was a way of judging the worst instructor performance in history, because this would have to be a top contender.

 

[Scott]

didn't he defend them previously though?

You may be thinking of former counsel Rick Lesser.

 

[Wookie]

Curious, since the complaint says twice that it was NOT an instructional dive.

As I said, if this was an instructional dive for her, then I wish there was a way of judging the worse instructor performance in history, because this would have to be a top contender.

I think it begs the question, if there was no pre-dive briefing, was it an instructional dive? But there is more information. It isn’t for public information yet.

 

[Wookie]

I think it begs the question, if there was no pre-dive briefing, was it an instructional dive? But there is more information. It isn’t for public information yet.

But when you hear it, you’ll be even madder.

 

[Esprise Me]

@Wookie you terrible tease!

Seriously tho, thanks for the info. I'll be following with great interest.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I'm curious if/when this will go to trial. I fully realize that no one can answer that.

 

[Wookie]

@Wookie you terrible tease!

Seriously tho, thanks for the info. I'll be following with great interest.

I’m sorry. I don’t mean to be a tease, but I specifically asked what I could share and that wasn’t it. And David reads this thread.

 

[Esprise Me]

I’m sorry. I don’t mean to be a tease, but I specifically asked what I could share and that wasn’t it. And David reads this thread.

No, I completely get it. But to paraphrase the great logician Bart Simpson, those are all valid points; the problem is they don't result in me getting what I want!

 

[MrVegas]

I'm curious if/when this will go to trial. I fully realize that no one can answer that.

Probably at least a year. The Defendants have not filed an answer yet, and then there will be discovery, and summary judgment motions, and, if the Plaintiffs get past summary judgment the case may well settle before it gets to a jury. In which case, we might not ever get a fully complete picture of what happened. (The case could possibly settle at any time.)

I honestly do have a hard time "analyzing" this case given the horrible tragedy. At the same time, since this is in the litigation thread, I can certainly imagine a defense case based on potential assumption of risk in an inherently dangerous activity, the possible existence of a liability waiver, contributory negligence, and, of course, there is the possibility that Defendants may deny many of the factual allegations of the complaint -- that she was a student, that they actually advised her to get in the water with a missing inflator hose, etc. I don't know any of that or any more than anyone else here at this point. There are likely complicated issues about which Defendants will actually be held liable (PADI, drysuit sellers, whether the corporate veil can actually be pierced, etc.)

The Plaintiffs have the burden of proof, though that burden is not as high as in a criminal proceeding.